Best. Drive. Home. EVAH!

Just imagine the freakout if the SC goes our way and legalizes gay marriage nation-wide by implication.

*ORGASM*

In my town, a woman wrote in to the local TV news blog, claiming marriage is a "UNIQUELY CHRISTIAN" institution, so gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I sh*t you not. (And those were her all caps.)

Poe or no? Hell if I can tell anymore.

I admire and salute your courage, Abbie. I would have caved in, wrenched the car-radio out of its snuggly box - panels and wires be damned, and thrown it out on the wayside. You actually drove AND heard them!

My enthusiasm at this piece of good news is tempered by the thoughts of the future. I am sure it is going to come up before the Supreme Court, and I am afraid that it will not fare well in the uber-conservative lala-land of Roberts, Scalia, Clarence Thomas et al.

What a great word!

Warblegarble!

Warblegarble! Warblegarble!

Warblegarble! Warblegarble! Warblegarble!

I listen to the warblegarbles;
Clearly, folks have lost their marbles,
Calling in, complaining, over Proposition 8!
A warblegarble helter-skelter!
Decent people seeking shelter
Now that Walker says there's no protection for their hate!
Homophobes get no more freebies--
Warblegarble heebie-jeebies
Used to be the basis for their bigotry-as-law.
But warblegarble hocus-pocus
Couldn't make the Judge lose focus--
Here's to all the warblegarblers: Pity-party! "Awwwwwwww!"

Do you drive past that roadside adult "bookstore" on I-70 near Topeka with the adjacent billboard that has been rented out by Christians telling us that the eyes of God are everywhere and that porno kills?

I need to take a picture of that one sometime.

Just imagine the freakout if the SC goes our way and legalizes gay marriage nation-wide by implication.

Yeah. No.

Somehow a (rumoured) gay judge is a conflict of interest, but a straight supreme court isn't. (Nevermind Catholic.)

In my town, a woman wrote in to the local TV news blog, claiming marriage is a "UNIQUELY CHRISTIAN" institution, so gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I sh*t you not. (And those were her all caps.)

Yeah. Damn those filthy Jews.

Yay, Cuttlefish! Warblegarble, one of us! Warblegarble, one of us!

Why don't you stop for a nice, tall glass of Wingnut Tears?

It'll come down to Anthony Kennedy's vote.

I turned on CNN or MSNBC or whatever on Wed and the Anti-Gay guy says "This decision ignores what millions of voters said they wanted."
Then Pro-Gay person speaks. "Our argument is that regardless of what voters voted for or not, this law sponsors hate and deprives people of the right to marry."
Moderator says "That's a good point. What if voters voted to ban interracial marriage?"
Anti-Gay says "That's totally different and you know it! That example is about race, our example is about marriage!!"
I didn't know whether to fall over laughing or to try and reach thru the TV and strangle that moron.

lol, i knew exactly what the post was about even before i clicked the rss entry :D

I love the complaints about activist judges, all you have to do is point out that Walker was originally put forward by Reagan and nominated by George the elder. Hell, Pelosi originally opposed his nomination. LULZ!

Do the people claiming that marriage is a uniquely Christian institution or that religious views should define institutions like marriage genuinely not understand that there are OTHER RELIGIONS OUT THERE?

There are some large Christian churches that want to marry gay people. Sure, some of them don't, so how about these wingnuts accepting that their EspeciallyCrazyPants denomination doesn't marry gay people, but now the SlightlyLessCrazyPants denomination can.

I suppose the SlightlyLessCrazyPants denominations aren't true scotsmen, so they don't count. Only members of the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 church get to set policy eh? :P

Kat-- HA! I forgot that one! The AFA guys totally brought this up voluntarily. You see, this isnt like equality for races, because even darkies didnt want the fags to be able to get married! Darkie reverends worked really hard to make sure Prop H8 passed, so this isnt like race at all.

And, faggotry is a CHOICE. There are 'lots' of reformed gays that have been 'delivered to Christ' (lol, wut?), so again, isnt like race at all.

They talked about that for at least 45 minutes.

No joke, one of the dudes names was 'Buster'. HAAAAHAHAHAHA!

What's really nice is that Walker was nominated by President George H. W. Bush.

And for the "this decision ignores what millions of voters said they wanted" folks, don't worry. No one is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex, or someone of a different race. The judge just doesn't think that you get to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else.

Kassul@#12

"Only members of the Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 church get to set policy eh?"

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912! Die heretic!

The gang that is pitching a fit are the Mormons and the SBC from the schism of 1845 (slavery, white supremacy, anti-miscegenation, child labor, sodomy laws,anti-suffrage, poll taxes, segregation, marital rape....etc. ).

I find Mormons defending traditional marriage hilarious.

Marriage is between a man a woman and most of her female cousins....oh and that cute gal that works at Ace Hardware.

What bugs me with the whole constitutional amendment stuff is both how easy it is in some states to change the constitution, and that it's subject to judicial review.
A constitution is supposed to lay out what constitutes the state, not what constitutes the state according to the voters opinion today, subject to revision next Tuesday by simple majority.
On the other hand, the whole idea of the constitutional process is that it's a document in which the ultimate sovereign, aka the people, determine how they want to live together, and it should be subject to review by anyone if properly adapted. To make the point, if the voters in enough states would vote in politicians that pass an amendment to the US constitution to outlaw interracial marriage, that would be the law of the land, even with 9 black female lesbian supreme court judges having a fit (insert 9 white beer-bellied male drunks against renewed prohibition as needed), since, appropriately, changes of the US constitution are not subject to review by the SCotUS.

Arrggghhh! Teh GAY, teh GAY. They're coming.

This response is one of the last gasps of the angry white man, on his way out of political power.

Driving through OK and KS to visit family? There is a song about that, you know. Just roll the windows down, plug this into the CD player and drive. Just a reminder that not everyone in the heartland is hung up on politics and religion.

Re car radios

That's what CD players are for, so one doesn't have to listen to the effing car radio. I haven't listened to the car radio for several years now.

Eh, CD players are lightweight. I have an iPod touch with an amusingly eclectic playlist. One slot goes to the lighter plug, the other to the cassette adapter, and i'm off. Sometimes I shake it to change tracks.

Abbie, you should call in to those shows and give them tips on how best to serve a fundamentalist Christian husband - place settings, ambience, sauces, complementary dishes, and especially wine recommendations. :P

We all have to live together in this country after this sorts out. There are plenty of people who are not bigots and oppose gay marriage; these people include our current President, our last Democratic President (who signed DOMA), and every single Democratic candidate for President in between.

52% of voters in California are not all bigots, Mormons, or fundamentalist Christians. Perhaps we could keep that in mind.

As for me, I think the government should stay out things that involve consenting adults, which is why I think we should recognize gay marriage and repeal the minimum wage.

52% of voters in California are not all bigots, Mormons, or fundamentalist Christians

So why exactly would they vote for a bigoted, Mormon-backed, fundamentalist-supported piece of legislation? Are they easily-swayed idiots who fall for blatant scare tactics and expensive advertising (because that's the implication)?

I know what you mean about those long drives with nothing on the radio. You'd think that by now someone would have invented a small plastic disk that you could slide into the radio, and the disk would have digitized music on it so that you could listen to your own choice of music on the drive instead of having someone else dictate what you listen to?

I know, that sounds way quaint these days. Perhaps instead, someone could invent a tiny device that has an even wider choice of digital music in it, that would hook onto your hip and have a wire that goes into one ear with a tiny speaker on the end, which would do the same thing?

What is wrong with our technology and inventors these days that we don't have convenient things like that? I guess we'll just have to listen to fundie talk radio or the silence (which is actually the rumble of the road, the roar of the engine and the blowing wind because although car manufacturers have amazingly invented the muffler to make cars quieter on the outside, they curiously seem utterly unable to implement something similar for the inside).

I guess it all comes down to our inability to teach better science in our schools, huh...?

Alice Bluegown@#23

"So why exactly would they vote for a bigoted, Mormon-backed, fundamentalist-supported piece of legislation? Are they easily-swayed idiots who fall for blatant scare tactics and expensive advertising....."

yes.

I think the government should stay out things that involve consenting adults, which is why I think we should recognize gay marriage and repeal the minimum wage.

Gabriel, where exactly is the consent in a business relationship between Billionaire O'SevenYachts and Starvey McSkinAndBones?

Please, tell me.

I find it interesting that the left is so upset about stereotypes and prejudice, but ultimately use stereotypes and prejudice to fight their enemies.

And rather than concentrate on the differences between the left and the right, why not focus on areas that you agree on.

For example, in an area related to your field, it may already be possible to not only identify unborn infants genetically predisposed to homosexuality, and abort them, but it may soon be possible to offer genetic therapy to cure them of this condition.

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna | August 8, 2010 6:36 PM

We all have to live together in this country after this sorts out. There are plenty of people who are not bigots and oppose gay marriage; these people include our current President, our last Democratic President (who signed DOMA), and every single Democratic candidate for President in between.

So? You seem a bit naive. And you seem to be projecting.

Also, you may want to check up on the definition of the word "bigotry". Whatever the ultimate source may be, if a person acts to deny civil rights to a certain segment of the population because they are intolerant of their sexual orientation, that is precisely what the definition of the word is. It does not matter in the least that the bigot may in all other ways be a nice person, or what the reason for their intolerance may be.

Are you so captivated by accommodationism that you think that bigotry should be accommodated?

Whatever the ultimate source may be, if a person acts to deny civil rights to a certain segment of the population because they are intolerant of their sexual orientation, that is precisely what the definition of the word is.

Gay people can and do marry. They must marry members of the opposite sex. The law is applied equally, whether you're male, female, gay, straight, or even if you're an evolutionist.

There is no civil right to marriage, and indeed, a state government would be free to ban even heterosexual marriage.

Gay marriage is obviously an assault on religion. If it were merely about rights (right to visit, right to get insurance on partner's insurance plan, etc.) other laws that do not attack marriage could be passed.

And, nobody has explained how gay marriage won't lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage when the sister has had her tubes tied or had a hysterectomy or the brother a vasectomy, bestiality, etc. If two or more mammals who love each other want to get married, what right is it for society to prevent it?

And what is it with scienceblogs. You guys can't even figure out how to parse blockquote, yet you claim to be authorities on marriage, religion, and science.

I see I'm going to be the whipping boy for opponents of same-sex marriage here, even though I already said I'm for it.

Alice Bluegown and Prometheus are willing to come out and say that when half the country disagrees with them on something, that half is clearly stump-toothed idiots. I assume they include Bill Clinton and the President in this classification. Very well.

Stogoe thinks that people can do whatever they want in their bedroom, but letting people decide for themselves what the conditions of their employment will be is just too sick and perverted.

Darrell E says I'm "naive", which could be--maybe Bill Clinton and the President are really homophobic bigots. He also says I'm "projecting"--that's when you accuse other people of doing what you yourself do. So that makes me a... Democratic President or Presidential candidate who opposes same-sex marriage?

Whatever the ultimate source may be, if a person acts to deny civil rights to a certain segment of the population because they are intolerant of their sexual orientation,

This is what YOU think is going on. What is really going on is that a NEW civil right is being created. In the West, for about two thousand years, marriage was one man and one woman, even in pre-Christian times. Yes, there were concubines and mistresses and whatnot, but these relationships did not have legal standing as marriages. Yes there were same-sex relationships, but in ancient times the social norms for them were VERY different from today, and they did not have legal standing as marriages either.

People like Bill Clinton and the President oppose same-sex marriage because it is a big change in how we define marriage as a society and not compatible with how they see the institution of marriage.

Darrell E seems to think that the Constitution has encoded within in it a right to same-sex marriage, which is absurd. Such a thing was never contemplated until about twenty years ago. Same-sex relationships were punished by brutal laws up through the twentieth century. How on earth can the law already contain this right within it, when no one until know ever conceived of such a right? This will be a NEW thing.

There have been bigger infringements of people's rights. We had slavery, the subordination of marriage, and Jim Crow laws. All of these things needed specific Constitutional amendments to undo; which by their nature required large majorities of the population to aquiesce in. They were not undone by a judge. It is not bigotry to insist that large changes in our culture need to be decided by a large consensus.

Polygamy at least has wide historical and cultural prevalence. It would be a much smaller change than same-sex marriage. Polygamy's time will come soon enough, now that restrictions on marriage are seen to be a violation of civil rights. People who don't accept this remind me of the guy in "There's Something About Mary" who invented the seven second workout. When asked about the possibility of a six second workout, he said "That's stupid! No one would ever want that!"

Libertards like me care a lot about process. Yes, it's true that in California it's way too easy to amend the constitution, their constitution is over a hundred pages and regulates golf courses among other things. But like it or not, that is their law, as Mu pointed out. It may well come down to Anthony Kennedy, as Tyler points out--but it shouldn't ever come down to that.

I have the quaint notion that laws should mean the same thing all the time, and that if we want to change the law, we should use the legislative and constitutional procedures, and that a judge who says a law that is the same as the existing Federal law on the subject somehow conflicts with a Constitutional right that no one imagine existed until a few decades ago, is doing what may be the right thing, but it is done in the wrong way and for the wrong reason.

One day the Right will regain the levers of power. When you've cut down the laws, who will save you then?

William Wallace;

Gay people can and do marry. They must marry members of the opposite sex. The law is applied equally, whether you're male, female, gay, straight, or even if you're an evolutionist.

This response is irrelevant. The civil right being denied is the right to equal protection under the law; gays are asking for the legal right to marry the adult partner of their choice, a privilege currently extended exclusively to straights. In the absence of a compelling state interest in denying such a privilege, reserving it for one group while denying it to another group arbitrarily is unconstitutional.

There is no civil right to marriage, and indeed, a state government would be free to ban even heterosexual marriage.

So?

Gay marriage is obviously an assault on religion. If it were merely about rights (right to visit, right to get insurance on partner's insurance plan, etc.) other laws that do not attack marriage could be passed.

I don't know what you mean.

And, nobody has explained how gay marriage won't lead to polygamy, incestuous marriage when the sister has had her tubes tied or had a hysterectomy or the brother a vasectomy, bestiality, etc.

It won't lead to bestiality because animals are incapable of giving informed consent.

As for the other stuff, who says we're under any obligation to soothe your anxieties on the subject? The question before us is whether arbitrary discrimination against gays in the arena of legal marriage is constitutional. It's not.

Gabriel Hanna;

This is what YOU think is going on. What is really going on is that a NEW civil right is being created.

You are familiar with the concept of unenumerated rights, yes?

@Fortuna:

You are familiar with the concept of unenumerated rights, yes?

Of course I am. And I'm sure you must have heard of the Nineteenth Amendment--if the concept of unenumerated rights were enough, there'd have been no need for it. Neither for the Twenty-fourth and Twenty-sixth. And how is there not an "unenumerated right" to polygamy?

I can point to interracial marriages all through history--interracial marriage has been around as long as marriage. Likewise with polygamy, though not in the West. But where was same-sex marriage? This is totally new. It is silly to pretend that isn't.

Nothing wrong with it being new. It's just wrong to pretend that such a right has always existed under our laws and is now being "denied". Actually, it hasn't quite come into being yet. I'm sure that it will soon and everyone will get used to it pretty quickly.

But I think we need to acknowledge that there are reasons for opposing same-sex marriage in general, and this ruling in particular, that are not grounded in homophobia. It is not right to demonize all the people who disagree with you, even if some percentage of them are bigots, which I don't dispute.

Gabriel seems to like to ignore the fact that the US constitution specifically did not enumerated all rights so that rights are presumed to exist and the gov't must justify its reason to deny a right. Also ignoring the whole idea of judicial review.

So you think gay marriage should be allowed, but only by majority rule? Huzzah for the tyranny of the majority. This is not creating a new right, this is recognizing the existence of a right (previously denied to exist) because the gov't has no sufficient reason to deny it. Additionally, I've heard NO secular arguments against gay marriage, though I'm willing to be shown that there are some.

@ErkLR:

the US constitution specifically did not enumerated all rights so that rights are presumed to exist and the gov't must justify its reason to deny a right.

No, ALL rights are not presumed to exist without a reason, or else why did so many rights get denied for so many years without anyone noticing? Why didn't anyone say in, say, 1840, "Hey, people have a right to gay sex! Let's stop putting them in prison at hard labor"? No one thought such a right existed, and there were laws against things like opening stores on Sunday.

Also ignoring the whole idea of judicial review.

Judicial review is not some absolute power to say that anything should be legal, or else we have a tyranny of the MINORITY. Would you like a creationist judge with that power? You'll get one, someday.

Even if what you said is true, everything you've said applies to polygamy as well. Polygamists' rights are being denied by the tyranny of the majority.

And what about the minimum wage? What business is it of the government what wage I work for, or hire someone for--what business of my fellow citizens?

See, you don't really apply what you're saying across the board, do you? It's only same-sex marriage and a few other issues. You want to legislate morality to.

Additionally, I've heard NO secular arguments against gay marriage, though I'm willing to be shown that there are some.

You've never bothered to look, I bet. Well, why don't you ask your fellow supporters of same-sex marriage who deny that it will lead to polygamy. Ask them for a secular reason to not legalize polygamy. Take that argument, and substitute in it "same-sex marriage".

re: Gabriel Hanna@32:

Stogoe thinks that people can do whatever they want in their bedroom, but letting people decide for themselves what the conditions of their employment will be is just too sick and perverted.

What you are failing to consider is relative power - a crucial element in any contract. The government already gets involved with regards to power imbalance in personal relationships (abusive relationships, treating others as chattel, &c) and we seem to applaud that - or is 'rape within marriage' not rape in your opinion?

Power imbalance in fiscal/job contracts is even more apparent and demands regulation. Your lame response to Stogoe is simply illogical and based on nothing less than wishful thinking. In an ideal world I'd be tempted to agree with you. In reality, I can't.

The old saw is on point: "If I owe you a dollar and can't pay it back, I'm in trouble... If I owe you a million dollars and can't pay it back, you're in trouble".

This is increasingly evident today with the growth of 'at will' job contracts - the company owns the relationship, and owns all the power in the relationship. How many people do YOU know who stay in a job they hate because they need the healthcare, or because the market is so bad the likelihood of finding another job is slim? That is the definition of contractual imbalance. When one party is not 'free to choose' to sever - when the penalty for one party is significantly greater than for the other.

Your self-labeling as a 'libertard' is apt - but you need only the last four letters to be properly accurate.

@TonyC:

What you are failing to consider is relative power - a crucial element in any contract. The government already gets involved with regards to power imbalance in personal relationships (abusive relationships, treating others as chattel, &c) and we seem to applaud that--

So, the government SHOULD get involved in people's private business if other people think the relationship is abusive or something like that? As long as YOU get decide what constitutes that, same-sex marriage is legal, but if OTHER people get to decide what's abusive or wrong, then it won't be. That's what you're not seeing.

- or is 'rape within marriage' not rape in your opinion?
Your self-labeling as a 'libertard' is apt - but you need only the last four letters to be properly accurate.

Nice. Hey, if you guys want an echo chamber, you can have one. Fine by me.

Gabriel Hanna@38:

So, the government SHOULD get involved in people's private business if other people think the relationship is abusive or something like that?

way to conflate!

All things are not equal, and all intrusions are not illegitimate.

If someone comes seeking medical help for a beating - then the state should get involved, since physical abuse is indicative of a societal ill - or are you saying it's OK to beat on people so long as you get a contract from them stating it's OK? Even if that contract could be seen as being coerced?

Likewise - and try *really hard* to read this for comprehension - any contract between unequal powers is not a fair contract, if the 'superior' party demonstrates a willingness to use it's unequal power to impose sanctions or constraints upon the subordinate party that would not be valid or appropriate in a contract between equals.

Governmental involvement is *at the behest* of the people and for the benefit of society (whatever society sanctions at the moment) - and if it is not at the behest of the people, then the people need to impose change on their government. This does not imply a need for no government, just better government.

Government regulation of contracts is designed to help impose a more level playing field, so that those with power do not trample all over the rights (enumerated or not) of those without power. Everything else is fluff.

Definitely a *major* 'tard.

Gabriel Hanna@#32

"Alice Bluegown and Prometheus are willing to come out and say that when half the country disagrees with them on something, that half is clearly stump-toothed idiots."

I don't know about Alice but I think 'half' is a pretty conservative estimate of the number of stump-toothed idiots with whom I am in disagreement on any given Monday.

Look, every state and federal alphabet agency has conferred specialized legal status on people that participate in a goofy religious convention, provided they demonstrate the approved genital configuration.

They are going to have to stop engaging in that absurdly unconstitutional favoritism or they are going to need to extend it to a category of people broad enough so that it isn't absurd constitutional favoritism anymore.

Libertarians like the first option.

Classic liberals like the second.

Political parties, religious groups and politicians don't want to make a decision that is going to either deprive Ozzie and Harriet of their subsidized goody bag or increase taxes so everybody can have candy.

None of this matters except in getting it off the ground.

The present status violates the Constitution's establishment clause.

That must change.

The best way to do that is to eliminate the legal sanction of a religious sacrament entirely.

Not going to happen.

We start by broadening the favored class. We conclude when gay, straight married, single or whatever you've got are treated as human beings of equal worth and equal consideration (or equal worthlessness and equal indifference...cause it's hot and Monday).

Maybe then we can quit engaging in the pretense that the Declaration of Independence has no legal force and effect because the truths we once held to be so self evident have proven to be so bloody inconvenient/expensive.

Alice Bluegown and Prometheus are willing to come out and say that when half the country disagrees with them on something, that half is clearly stump-toothed idiots.

Im neither of them, but what youre missing is that the half that agees with me is also primarily stump-toothed idiots. The vast majority of this country (and all others for that matter) are, "easily-swayed idiots who fall for blatant scare tactics and expensive advertising."

Shrug. Thats why what the majority believes is irrelevant except for tactical considerations. The problem with our political class is they have confused the means for the ends. I suppose its an understandable occupational hazard, but still a problem none the less.

Dave@#41

"....what the majority believes is irrelevant except for tactical considerations."

Now there's a fitting epitaph for the first decade of the 21st century.

I often reflect on the tragedy of P.T. Barnum never seeing what became of the world. Oh to see what he could have done to a market so gullible it supports well over 900 different commercial brands of water.....sigh.

@36 Gabriel Hanna
Yes rights that people had were denied by unconstitutional laws in the past. People allowed their prejudices to let those laws be. So yeah, gay people did have the right to marry before, and have gay sex and blacks had the right to be free, but they were denied those rights. As for a single judge interpreting law how they want rather than by the law, that's why there are appeals and there is a PANEL of judges on the Supreme Court.

Also you presume my answers to the issue of polygamy and the entirely unrelated issue of minimum wage. I bet I could win every argument if I make up my opponents answers too.

There was a rather interesting point made in regards to enumerated rights and the constitution, as to that a lot of rights were presumed to be already in existence by the time the constitution was implemented, and therefor didn't need to be enumerated; I think that's part of the reasoning in the infamous slaughterhouse cases that delineated state and federal rights.
So you could make the argument that interracial marriage had been around for centuries, as such predates the constitution, and would be one of those inalienable rights. Gay marriage is a 20th century concept, and as such could require being enumerated.

Hey, Wallace...

Hold on a sec, let me get out my bingo card.

Okay, please continue.

Gabriel Hanna;

Of course I am. And I'm sure you must have heard of the Nineteenth Amendment--if the concept of unenumerated rights were enough, there'd have been no need for it.

Strictly speaking, there ought to have been no need for it, yes. The 14th amendment would seem to have this covered, but what can I say, people are stupid, and the situation was dire enough that things needed to be spelled out.

Neither for the Twenty-fourth and Twenty-sixth.

Neither of those address a situation in which a right was presumed not to exist at all.

And how is there not an "unenumerated right" to polygamy?

In much the same way that there is not an unenumerated right to ride unicorns; polygamy as a legal institution does not exist at this time. If it ever should come into existence, I'll be happy to argue that people of all sexual orientations should have access to it, as a consequence of all citizens being entitled to equal protection under the law, and due to such access being arguably an unenumerated right.

I can point to interracial marriages all through history--interracial marriage has been around as long as marriage. Likewise with polygamy, though not in the West. But where was same-sex marriage? This is totally new.

The question at hand is whether the right to marry the adult partner of one's choice, irrespective of their biological sex, can be considered an unenumerated right. I don't believe there is an honest reading of the American Constitution that allows one to hold that it isn't (and hasn't been all along). Everyone gets equal protection under the law, and the fact that particular rights aren't spelled out in the constitution is not a reason in itself to deny that they obtain. As such, your appeal to the way marriage was actually practiced is irrelevant.

But I think we need to acknowledge that there are reasons for opposing same-sex marriage in general [not grounded in homophobia]

I do not agree, but perhaps you will change my mind. What are they?

@Fortuna:

there is not an unenumerated right to ride unicorns; polygamy as a legal institution does not exist at this time.

And neither does same-sex marriage. Polygamy is an extension of the institution of marriage, with a great deal of prevalence and precedence. It has been the norm through human history. Same-sex marriage is also an extension but does not have that prevalence. Yet you think same-sex marriage is self-evidently a right and polygamy is not, and you've never given a reason why.

I agree with Mu here, that the institution of marriage forms part of the bedrock of the Constitution. The Constitution did not spring forth from the head of Zeus, it is based on common law--three hundred years of legal precedents--and assumes the common law throughout (which is why it doesn't define terms like "high crimes and misdemeanors" or explain what a slave is). The Constitution can only supersede them if it says so explicitly, I think. Which is why women didn't get the vote, and slaves weren't freed, and same-sex marriage wasn't legalized, in 1789.

The question at hand is whether the right to marry the adult partner of one's choice, irrespective of their biological sex, can be considered an unenumerated right. I don't believe there is an honest reading of the American Constitution that allows one to hold that it isn't (and hasn't been all along).

So what you are saying is that we have no idea what the Constitution we live under really says. We'll just find out centuries hence as our social norms change. (And all that stuff in there about slaves and slavery--how does that square with your theory?)

In other words, you really don't believe in law, and you believe that rights are absolute--they never change with time or culture and they exist even if nobody knows what they are. This is theology, not a legal system.

I think what you and ErkLR are trying to say is that there is and always has been a MORAL right to same-sex marriage--and this would imply you believe in an absolute standard of morality that humans gradually discover, like laws of physics. But laws don't work that way. There currently is no LEGAL right to same-sex marriage--this is why we have a Federal law against it, signed by Bill Clinton. There was a time when women had no LEGAL right to be involved in civic life, no matter how much they may have deserved it, morally.

I do not agree [that there are reasons for opposing same-sex marriage in general [not grounded in homophobia]], but perhaps you will change my mind. What are they?

I can't believe we haven't all heard the same arguments. Anyway, I'm not the person to make those arguments because I am not convinced by them--and I do not endorse any of them, let me add, before I'm asked to defend them.

I can give you a few examples:

Barack Obama: ""I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Certainly a religious argument, but I don't think anyone would call him a homophobe.

http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

Hillary Clinton: ""Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman."

Which is wrong (polygamy has always existed) but not homophobic.

Ross Douthat in the New York Times, the key point is

"So what are gay marriageâs opponents really defending, if not some universal, biologically inevitable institution? Itâs a particular vision of marriage, rooted in a particular tradition, that establishes a particular sexual ideal.

This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings â a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest â as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship. It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to child-rearing. And recognizing the difficulty of achieving these goals, it surrounds wedlock with a distinctive set of rituals, sanctions and taboos.

The point of this ideal is not that other relationships have no value, or that only nuclear families can rear children successfully. Rather, itâs that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable â a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations â that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support.

Again, this is not how many cultures approach marriage. Itâs a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the sexes.

Or at least, it was the Western understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic, more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09douthat.html

The argument I am most sympathetic to is the "tradition" argument, best stated, I think, by Chesterton:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion."

That's not an argument against same-sex marriage particularly, but I think it's always worth keeping in mind.
Marriage as an institution will change in ways we don't expect, but I don't think that same-sex marriage will change it nearly as much as easy-divorce or contraception.

Fascinating, the idiot brigade have arrived.

Gabriel, Willy, try to grasp this. Gay people in the USA are not asking for a special right of "gay marriage". They are asking for the right to marry. Similarly, civil rights campaigners were not campaigning for a special right of "black voting" but for the right to vote. The women's suffrage movement were not campaigning for a special right of "female voting" but for the right to vote.

Religious positions are irrelevent because (i) religion does not dictate civil rights and (ii) civil marriage is not a religious phenomenon. No religion will be forced to conduct marriages for gay people if that doesn't suit their theology, and that doesn't matter, because religions don't have the monopoly on marriage.

Gabriel,

Have you read Judge Walker's decision? It answers everything you are bringing up. He spends quite a bit of time explaining why tradition is not a good enough argument, why a particular sexual ideal cannot be enshrined in the California Consitution, as well as why the historic arguement is in fact on the side of those who are against Prop 8. Thats the amusing thing about this: The proponents not only lost on the Law, they lost on the Facts.

After reading the decision, you get the sense that ProtectMarriage was in the position of people who showed up with knives to a gunfight. Rubber knives. And then dropped them.

I'm with Gabriel on the arguments for same-sex marriage applying, mutatis mutandis, to polygamy. What I'm surprised that more people don't respond with "Duh, but one reform at a time". Is anyone here for same-sex marriage but against polygamy? Seems like an odd position, but I guess these things look different to me, being from South Africa, where we have an openly homophobic president with 5 wives, and same-sex marriage is legal.

Also, the main argument here looks a little odd. You all (barring silly Willy) seem to think same-sex marriage should be legalised, but you are fighting over whether its an already existing (but unenumerated?) right, or a new one. Is this distinction really that important? If it is, then how do you resolve such questions? Someone should go to the place where all the unenumerated rights are enumerated, and check...

Ahh. A passionate libertarian. I understand now.

Mu, Fortuna, et al:

Gay marriage is a 20th century concept, and as such could require being enumerated.

I call bullshit!

Gay marriage has been around as long as the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans (remember them?).

In the middle ages, there are even recorded instances of people marrying livestock! (Even the concepts of best man, and matron of honor, are devolved from those who would be required to take on the contractual obligations of the marriage should the original partners be unable to proceed! Not much to do with love'n'kisses there!)

Marriage, in the current, homo-phobic, uber-xian sense is a NEW institution, since it denies all of the traditional forms of marriage that are and have been practiced.

Marriage in the legal, roman-law sense is a contract between two (or more, where allowed) individuals. Nothing more and nothing less. It enumerates inheritance and proxy agreements between those individuals. It enumerates the contractual relationship between those individuals and the state, and the state reciprocates that relationship (for instance, allowing married partners to file taxes as if they were a single 'person'!) That's it. Everything else is purely religious or cultural trappings that have no meaning or standing in law!

Is anyone here for same-sex marriage but against polygamy?

I'm not against polygamy, in theory, but it hurts my brain to try and resolve all the legal conundrums it brings up ('are my two spouses married to each other?', f'rex), and the history of sexism in polygamy is troubling. In any case, it's not for me personally but I hope that the people who desire it will someday be allowed to have it. I think eventually marriage will include muliple parties but honestly, I think that platonic unions will have their day before group marriages.

@StephenWells:

Fascinating, the idiot brigade have arrived.

Nice. If I don't agree with you on everything, I'm no better than William Wallace and an idiot.

Gabriel, Willy, try to grasp this. Gay people in the USA are not asking for a special right of "gay marriage". They are asking for the right to marry.

I've already written at length about this. Learn to read. I myself think they SHOULD have that right; that they do not currently have that legal right, and how they should go about getting that legal right, are the only things I am concerned with.

The Constitution is not a magic wand that you can use to right all wrongs; not unless you want the legal system to be merely whatever judges decide whenever they want. That is, and always has been, my point.

@Dave:

Judge Walker also made some extremely dubious findings of fact, such as that gender is irrelevant to marriage. Whatever you think about the wrongness or rightness of that position, it cannot be a fact. A finding of fact should be something like "Gabriel Hanna ran a red light on October 26, 2009".

Imagine a creationist judge finding it a fact that evolution cannot explain the development of human intelligence, or something like that. You'd be outraged.

@Ben:

You all (barring silly Willy) seem to think same-sex marriage should be legalised, but you are fighting over whether its an already existing (but unenumerated?) right, or a new one. Is this distinction really that important? If it is, then how do you resolve such questions?

Yes, it is that important. How do we know what the laws are if they say one thing for two hundred-odd years and then all of a sudden say something else when a judge says they do? Some people here are very comfortable with that idea, and I am not. I am against this idea for the same reason I am against enlightened despotism of any sort.

@TonyC:

Gay marriage has been around as long as the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans

I don't know about the Egyptians--the Pharaohs certainly engaged in incestuous. marriages. What you say about the Greeks and Romans is not true. There were formalized homosexual relationships, for men (and boys) only, which were not equivalent to marriage, not called marriage--and today they would be considered pedophilia. Homosexual relationships between adult men were stigmatized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

I know that Nero and Elagabalus were supposed to have married men--they were also considered loathsome tyrants and murdered. Same-sex marriage did not exist in the ancient West.

I see also, TonyC, that you consider that polygamy also must be legalized. I'll give you credit for the consistency.

Everything else is purely religious or cultural trappings that have no meaning or standing in law!

Nonsense. The law is what we've been arguing about. The law, for over two hundred years, was understood perfectly. What you MEAN is that YOU THINK they OUGHT to have no standing in law.

Since marriage in the form in which we practice it is "uber-xian", why is it virtually identical to the form currently practiced in China and Japan? It's one-man one-woman there, and same-sex marriage isn't legal there either.

At least you didn't call me a retard again, and I give you credit for that too.

@Fortuna:

Another non-homophobic argument against same-sex marriage:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0806/Gay-marriage-Why-…

For the slow readers, let me say once again that I do not endorse the argument and I agree that same-sex marriage should be legal.

Gabriel,

Judge Walker also made some extremely dubious findings of fact, such as that gender is irrelevant to marriage.

Really? I just re-reviewed all 80 findings of fact in the decision and cannot find that. The closest I come is:

48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is samesex or opposite-sex.

Which seems a reasonable statement of fact to me. If you disagree, perhaps you could point to your own references showing where they differ on standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, after all Judge Walker provides 11 references to support this finding of fact. If youre talking about another finding, please quote the actual language used.

In anycase, whether or not you agree with his findings, you arent presenting an argument, youre simply repeating the claims the Judge has already considered and devoted significant space in his decision to refutations of. If you disagree with the ruling, show how his refutations are wrong, dont just sit there and repeat the original claims as if nothing has transpired.

Oh yes, I forgot: Dancing Rodents to your Pops, Abbie!

@55

Wow! Brownie points to you, you found an argument against SSM that is explicity bigoted against women rather than against homosexuals. Hoo-rah!

GH still hasn't given a non-homophobic argument against SSM. Even the misogynist one was also homophobic in that it is religion-based.

As for polygamy; if that idea wasn't sullied by the pro-rape-slavery of religion. and rather an equal partnership between n > 2 people with equal protection under the law. what would be the problem?

Gabriel Hanna;

Yet you think same-sex marriage is self-evidently a right and polygamy is not, and you've never given a reason why.

Yes I have; equal protection under the law.

The Constitution can only supersede them [common law precedents] if it says so explicitly, I think.

Good thing all citizens are explicitly entitled to equal protection under the law.

So what you are saying is

I'm not trying to say any of the things you subsequently attributed to me. All I am trying to say is this; the 14th amendment makes it clear that the laws of the land are to be applied equally to all citizens. Straights have access to a legal privilege, marrying the partner of their choice, that gays don't; that is not an equal application of the law. It is for that reason that I believe that gay marriage is an implicit right; it is there if one carries the logic of the constitution and of legal marriage to their logical conclusion.

I can't believe we haven't all heard the same arguments. Anyway, I'm not the person to make those arguments because I am not convinced by them

I have zero interest in arguments that don't even convince the person advancing them.

Polygamy is an extension of the institution of marriage

Upon further reflection, I think this is also wrong. Polygamous marriages would require a substantial reworking of existing laws governing divorce, custody, inheritance, visitation rights and power of attorney. It would be a new legal institution.

By contrast, all that legal SSM requires is that one says "all that marriage stuff now also applies to Larry and Steve", so to speak.

Note that I am not attempting to argue that polygamy ought not to be legal.

@Dave:

"48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is samesex or opposite-sex."

Which seems a reasonable statement of fact to me.

You think it is reasonable, to state as a fact, that the ability to have a satisfying and stable relationship is the only possible relevant ability to marriage? That, sir, is one of the very points under dispute, and if Judge Walker wants to steal bases like that he might well have said it's a finding of fact that Proposition 8 is unConstitutional.

I understand that he has references to support that opinion. There are many things I find to agree with in that opinion. But it is far from a "fact". It's certainly not in the same league as "studies show that children who grow up with same-sex parents are no less well-adjusted".

A judge finding as fact that humans are too different from other primates to be classified as such could also cite plenty of references, but that too would be far from a true fact.

Another problematic finding of fact: #77, "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."

Thoughts and opinions are equivalent to harm! What could possibly go wrong?

you found an argument against SSM that is explicity bigoted against women rather than against homosexuals. Hoo-rah!

"Marriage is a necessary defense of a womanâs sexuality and her human liberty from determined assault by men who would turn her into a slave, a concubine â something less than fully human." Yes, the misogyny just drips out of that. That women and men might be treated differently, and to the detriment of women, by some kinds of marriage is not bigotry. Others can go read the link and decide if your characterization is accurate.

@eddie:

GH still hasn't given a non-homophobic argument against SSM. Even the misogynist one was also homophobic in that it is religion-based.

Religion = homophobia, and baseless accusations of misogyny. Fantastic.

As for polygamy; if that idea wasn't sullied by the pro-rape-slavery of religion. and rather an equal partnership between n > 2 people with equal protection under the law. what would be the problem?

I don't see one, personally; I care only how polygamy is legalized. Pretending there's a secret right to it encoded in the Constitution, and all we need is a judge to say so, is the wrong way.

@Fortuna

Yes I have; equal protection under the law.

Have blind people the legal right to drive? Have people in wheelchairs the legal right to join the NBA? Are men and women given the same treatment in divorce and custody hearings? You may well argue that some or all of these things OUGHT to be, but the fact is that under current law they are not violations of the equal protection clause. Whether or not same-sex marriage qualifies is one of the points under contention.

I have zero interest in arguments that don't even convince the person advancing them.

I'm NOT advancing them. You said you had never heard of a non-homophobic argument. Well, now you have. Whether I personally am convinced by them has nothing to do with whether they are homophobic, now does it?

Polygamous marriages would require a substantial reworking of existing laws governing divorce, custody, inheritance, visitation rights and power of attorney.

So did giving women equal rights with men. What does inconvenience matter when civil rights are at stake, right?

It would be a new legal institution.

No, a very old one, and very widespread.

Note that I am not attempting to argue that polygamy ought not to be legal.

Try this on for size:

"Polyamorous relationships are identical to couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like couples, polyamorous people have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a relationship consists of a couple or more persons."

You'll soon get no say one way or the other.

The civil right being denied is the right to equal protection under the law; gays are asking for the legal right to marry the adult partner of their choice, a privilege currently extended exclusively to straights.--Fortuna

No straight is allowed to marry a person of the same gender. Equal protection is being followed. Keep trying. But logic is not on your side.

Besides, we know you're just trying to destroy traditions of Western civilization.

Ho hum. At present a man can marry a woman but a woman can't. That's gender discrimination against women. A woman can marry a man but a man can't. That's gender discrimination against men.

Does anyone have any point that (a) Walker's decision didn't cover or (b) isn't "Waaaaaah"?

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna | August 11, 2010 12:38 AM

@Dave:

"48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is samesex or opposite-sex." (A finding of fact from the Walker Decision quoted by Dave)

Which seems a reasonable statement of fact to me.

You think it is reasonable, to state as a fact, that the ability to have a satisfying and stable relationship is the only possible relevant (emphasis mine) ability to marriage?

GH, this is just one example of why you irritate the fuck out of everyone you argue with. If you wonder why so many people react rudely to you, take note. In the above example you have put words in the mouths of Dave and Judge Walker. You do this constantly.

I don't know, and really don't give a shit, why you do this. Perhaps your reading comprehension sucks. Perhaps you are projecting. Perhaps you are simply dishonest and do this so that you can say what you want to say instead of addressing what the other person has said.

Whatever. If you continue to argue like you have everytime I have ever run across you, people will continue to react rudely and offer you no respect. You may think that most everyone else is dead wrong and that you are one of the rare rebels that can clearly see the truth, and that that is why people are rude to you. Nothing like that. People are rude to you because you argue dishonestly.

Awww . . . How Cute! Gabriel has gone adorably PoMo on us.

And by adorably, I of course mean annoyingly and dishonestly.

You think it is reasonable, to state as a fact, that the ability to have a satisfying and stable relationship is the only possible relevant ability to marriage?

No. When you finish with that pile of straw, Ill be over here. Actually, I wont be, Ill be in the pub having a beer.

Man the fuck up and make an argument.

Yes, Im sure there are non-homophobic arguments against gay marriage: I expect that Archimedes Plutonium has one, but since no one else gives a southern fried rats ass about the implications of Plutonium Atom Totality, its pretty irrelevant.

Needing marriage to protect women from some nameless horror that would cause the end of civilization is better fanfic than an argument against SSM. It should mention Arkham MA though.

And the decision never addresses a need to treat women and men differently, at least it doesnt if you havent read it.

If these issues of fact were the heart of the dispute, why didnt the proponents present some evidence to the contrary, instead of doing the No-Pants Dance?

For that matter, why dont you? Feel free to tell us why Harvard and Yale Historians, the vicechair of the UCLA graduate Psych program, a UMass Historian and the proponent's own expert on comparative religion and marriage are all wrong.

Or you can keep imitating the inhabitants of Summerisle.

In the meantime, the rest of us know that glory doesnt mean a nice knock-down argument.

@Dave and Darrel E:

Okay, do tell us where Judge Walker gets the authority to declare what the relevant characteristics of marriage (however many they be) are for the entire country, as a finding of fact.

In the above example you have put words in the mouths of Dave and Judge Walker. You do this constantly....You may think that most everyone else is dead wrong and that you are one of the rare rebels that can clearly see the truth, and that that is why people are rude to you.

Tu quoque... I can do this differently. By stating what I think people mean I'm trying to prod them to clarify or look at implications, but this could be better done in the form of a question than in a statement.

Meanwhile, note that I have not attributed invidious motives to anyone, and am nearly the only person commenting in this thread who has not.

Man the fuck up and make an argument.

My argument is, and always has been, that a law may be unjust or stupid, but that has no relevance to its Constitutionality; and that some people are confusing moral rights with legal ones.

Feel free to tell us why Harvard and Yale Historians, the vicechair of the UCLA graduate Psych program, a UMass Historian and the proponent's own expert on comparative religion and marriage are all wrong.

Maybe no one gave them the authority to decide these questions for everyone. If a different judge used a different set of people with equivalent credentials to reach the opposite result, you'd be outraged.

@Stephen Wells:

At present a man can marry a woman but a woman can't. That's gender discrimination against women. A woman can marry a man but a man can't. That's gender discrimination against men.

And so it is that a man can't be considered a child's mother in custody proceedings, and can't use the women's bathroom. Obviously it is gender discrimination, the question is it invidious and illegal? You may certainly ARGUE that it is, and so does Judge Walker, and I don't mind that he argues that. I just happen to think that he's wrong, and in addition to give some statements the status of fact.

Does anyone have any point that (a) Walker's decision didn't cover or (b) isn't "Waaaaaah"?

Oh, I suppose there's "warblegarble" and "hurr durr durr".

I'm getting a bit tired of being the pinata, though granted it was my own choice; so everyone else may feel free to have the last word.

Is it just me or does it seem that outside of cities and metropolitan areas America is stuck in the 1950s at the latest?

I was in Appalachia once and I swear I saw part of the country that was stuck back in the Civil War.

I've always found it funny, by the way, how homophobes have a tendency to bind their homophobia up with sexism.

Also, tradition can go eat a bowl of dicks.

Gabriel Hanna;

Whether or not same-sex marriage qualifies is one of the points under contention.

Yes. I have explained why I think it does qualify.

Also, one of your examples is not a public institution, and the others are adequately covered by my having pointed out earlier that rights may be abridged if the government can make a compelling case for doing so.

Whether I personally am convinced by them has nothing to do with whether they are homophobic, now does it?

It might. Bullshit arguments are frequently advanced in order to avoid having to come right out and say "but they're fucking QUEEEER!" If you don't think they succeed as arguments, are you not effectively offering me a pile of bullshit obfuscation and asking me how I like the smell?

So did giving women equal rights with men. What does inconvenience matter when civil rights are at stake, right?

Way to miss the point.

No, a very old one, and very widespread.

Citation is required. You're going to need to show that laws governing multiple-partner divorce, custody, inheritance, visitation rights and power of attorney were historically widespread.

You'll soon get no say one way or the other.

Is that supposed to bother me?

William Wallace;

No straight is allowed to marry a person of the same gender. Equal protection is being followed.

In that respect, yes. In the respect that I mentioned, it is not.

Besides, we know you're just trying to destroy traditions of Western civilization.

Bite me.

Yup, this is completely about destroying traditions of Western civilisation. We got rid of the Divine Right of Kings, we got rid of slavery, the patriarchy has taken some big hits what with women being able to vote and own their own property, and now homophobia is the next toad beneath the harrow.

The Enlightenment: slowly but surely destroying the stupid, primitive, wrong traditions of Western civilisation. This is a feature, not a bug.

"Tradition" is fine as a reason for Morris dancing. For anything more substantial, you need actual reasons.

Stephen Wells@72

Bravo! Ditto! plus ca change!

If a different judge used a different set of people with equivalent credentials to reach the opposite result, you'd be outraged.

No, Id present exactly what those people are wrong, using statistics, data and equally if not better credentialed experts. Instead, you and the proponents stand around with your hands on your hips yelling, "I disagree!" Same with your "constitutional" objection.

Yelling, "NO!" is how four-year-olds argue.